During this #CloseUpConversations webinar, Close Up Foundation sits down with Freedom Rider, Joan Mulholland. Joan has been featured in several books and award-winning documentaries about the Civil Rights Movement, including PBS’ Freedom Riders, Standing on my Sister’s Shoulders, and Eyes on the Prize. Joan has also spoken to Close Up students from Utah for the last several years!
At Close Up, building civic proficiency and comprehension is at the heart of everything we do. Learn more about how we support students, teachers, and civic literacy through our programs, professional development, curriculum, and classroom resources.
On May 3, the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics released its civics and U.S. history data from the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Often referred to as The Nation’s Report Card, the NAEP is given to a representative sample of eighth-grade students across the country every four years and covers a variety of school subjects. Data from the 2022 tests found that scores in both civics and U.S. history have significantly declined since 2018.1
Civics scores dropped three points on average for both boys and girls, from 153 to 150 on a 300-point scale.2 Only 22 percent of students were found to be at or above a “proficient” level for civics comprehension; of the whole, 69 percent of students were at or above a “basic” level of understanding, and 31 percent were below basic.3 These scores are nearly the same as those from the civics assessment in 1998, the first year it was given.4
Scores for U.S. history, which began declining in 2014, continued to fall across the four thematic areas measured by the NAEP: American democracy, culture, technology, and world role.5 The average score dropped five points, from 263 to 258, out of a possible 500 points.6 Two out of every five students were below a basic level of understanding, meaning it is unlikely that they could “identify simple historical concepts in primary or secondary sources.”7
Lower-performing students were generally worse off in both subjects when compared to their peers.8 And higher-performing students were twice as confident in their ability to explain political processes, knowledge of current events, and belief in themselves about their ability to make a difference in their community.9
In response to the NAEP data, Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona pointed to the “profound impact the pandemic had on student learning in subjects beyond math and reading.”10 Online instruction and prolonged absences from the classroom disrupted learning for millions of students, resulting in a lack of support for struggling students, a rise in disruptive behavior, and ongoing mental health struggles.11 Students who fell behind still struggle to make up what they have lost. This problem is compound by teacher shortages, limited school funding, and a lack of resources and technology.
The results of the Nation’s Report Card come as young people are coming of age and forming their identities in a polarized political climate. A New York Times survey of 604 teenagers from April 2021 found that although many feel disillusioned amid growing partisanship and inaction, they are still motivated to involve themselves in politics and government.12 Students are eager to learn about U.S. history, engage in political discussions, stay current with the news, and take action themselves.
However, some observers point to data collected by the literary society PEN America, which has documented 306 bills introduced in 45 states since January 2021 that aim to restrict what students can be taught in schools.13 In general, these bills target discussion of such topics as slavery, systemic racism, gender, and sexuality. Twenty-six have become law.14
A 2022 Florida law led the state to heavily scrutinize textbooks and courses for alleged biases.15 Earlier this year, the state rejected a newly created Advanced Placement course on African American studies, saying the course as it stood was “not historically accurate” and lacked “educational value.”16 In Texas, meanwhile, a 2022 law bars courses from having students directly engage with their elected officials and governments.17 Class assignments in which students apply their civics lessons to the real world in a culminating project—like creating a petition, lobbying for an issue, contacting elected officials, or speaking on behalf of a city council—are no longer allowed to use school time or resources.
Secretary Cardona referenced this trend in his statement on the low NAEP scores, stressing that now is not “the time to limit what students learn in U.S. history and civics classes.” He underscored the importance of students having opportunities to learn about their country and government, adding, “Banning history books and censoring educators from teaching these important subjects does our students a disservice and will move America in the wrong direction.”18
Discussion Questions
Other Resources
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.
Sources
On April 15, fighting broke out in Sudan between the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF), the country’s national army, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group. The RSF is the largest paramilitary group in Africa, created in 2013 out of the Janjaweed militias that have been accused of war crimes and genocide in Darfur, a region in western Sudan, in the early 2000s.1 The conflict has displaced almost 1.1 million people, both inside Sudan and into neighboring countries. It is estimated that between 700 and 1,000 people have been killed and at least 5,287 have been injured.2 Experts say that over half of the population is in need of humanitarian aid after widespread power outages left civilians without access to water and food.3
Background of the Sudan Conflict
Sudan is the third largest country in Africa, located directly south of Egypt. It was a British colony until 1956 and has a population of 49 million people. Sudan is strategically situated on the Red Sea, contains vast mineral resources, and is a major agricultural exporter to Africa and the Middle East.4 There are over 500 ethnic groups in Sudan, but approximately 70 percent of people identify as Sudanese Arab.5 The country has a long history of political unrest, military takeovers, and violence. The International Criminal Court issued a warrant for former President Omar al-Bashir, accusing him of crimes against humanity and genocide.6
The Main Actors in the Sudan Conflict
At the center of the conflict in Sudan are two men: General Abdel Fattah Abdelrahman al-Burhan, leader of the SAF, and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who leads the RSF and frequently goes by the name Hemedti. Prior to this conflict, the two men took advantage of unrest caused by pro-democracy protests in 2019 to overthrow President Bashir, whom they had previously supported and worked under. A civilian-military coalition was created to help move Sudan towards democracy, but two years later, Burhan and Hemedti worked together again to lead a military coup to take control of the country. They claimed the takeover was to maintain stability from infighting in the civilian-led government. International observers say that since 2021, corruption has soared and the Sudanese economy is struggling.7
The Reasons for the Violence in Sudan
Burhan has been the de facto leader of Sudan since the coup in 2021, and Hemedti’s RSF forces, with anywhere from 70,000 to 150,000 members, were supporting—but are still separate from—the army. As Hemedti’s influence increased and he attempted to recruit more members to the RSF, tensions between the two men began to rise.8
Weeks before fighting broke out, the pro-democracy movement and military leaders were scheduled to sign an agreement to create a civilian-run, democratic government. It was postponed twice before the fighting broke out because of disagreement between the two generals over how the RSF would be incorporated into the Sudanese military. The agreement would have been an important step in creating a democratic government chosen by the Sudanese people.9
Conditions on the Ground in Sudan
It is not clear who shot first, but experts agree both sides were prepared for fighting. The conflict has largely centered on the Sudanese capital of Khartoum and Darfur. Residential areas, including schools, hospitals, markets, and the airport, have been targeted, bombed, and emptied by soldiers for use as temporary bases. There are reports of intimidation, looting, and sexual violence against women and girls.10 Volker Perthes, the United Nations’ special representative to Sudan, has stated that the fighting could split the country along ethnic lines, which would expand the conflict further.11
The U.S. Response to the Sudan Conflict
The United States has used a number of diplomatic actions to try to end the conflict in Sudan.
The International Response to the Sudan Conflict
The United Nations Human Rights Council had an emergency meeting on May 11 and passed a resolution calling for an end to hostilities, a transition to a civilian-led government, and human rights monitoring.16 The Arab Union, the African Union, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development in Eastern Africa (IGAD) have also called on both sides to cease fighting.17
There are competing interests in the region: stability or democracy. Neither Burhan nor Hemedti want a democratic Sudan, and many governments support a transfer of power to one general or the other to maintain stability and gain access to Sudan’s resources, rather than prioritizing democracy.18
What About a Ceasefire?
A ceasefire, brokered by the United States and Saudi Arabia and agreed to by the SAF and RSF, began the evening of May 22. The aim was to stop fighting so humanitarian aid could reach civilians trapped by the violence. The negotiations did not include civilian leaders and the ceasefire does not address future governance.19 Six previous ceasefires have failed, but Secretary Blinken says this is the first with a “monitoring mechanism,” without elaborating what that was. Reports were mixed this week as to whether the ceasefire has been successful.20
Discussion Questions
How to Get Involved
Other Resources
Colonial Origins of the Conflict in Sudan
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.
Sources
Recently, the Republican-led House of Representatives has been at odds with the Democrat-led Senate and President Joe Biden over raising the national debt ceiling. This issue touches on one of the fundamental powers of Congress—setting the budget for the federal government. Disagreements over spending have led to the current divide between the Republican and Democratic Parties on the issue. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the government may be unable to pay its debts as early as June 1, which could have serious consequences for the economy.
What Is the National Debt Ceiling?
Most years, the amount spent by the federal government is greater than the amount of money it collects in taxes. This is called a deficit. The last time the federal government experienced a surplus (meaning it collected more money than it spent) was 2001.1 Federal spending accounts for a wide range of sectors and services, including Social Security, Medicare, and national defense. When there is a deficit, the government must borrow money in order to pay for such priorities and this adds to the national debt.
The debt ceiling is the maximum amount of total debt that the federal government is allowed to have, as determined by Congress. The debt ceiling is also a limit on the total debt that can be incurred to pay for the current budget and does not authorize any new spending beyond that.2
Currently, the total national debt of the United States (which includes all debt from previous years in addition to this year) is $31.46 trillion—that’s $31,460,000,000,000.3 To put that into context, at the time of this publication, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is estimated to be worth $134 billion.4 The current debt held by the federal government is equivalent to over 234 times that.
Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen has informed Congress that in order for the United States to continue to pay for its spending beyond June 1, it will have to raise the debt limit higher than the current $31.46 trillion.5
What Happens If the Debt Ceiling Is Not Raised?
The federal government is expected to pay its debts just as any individual person would be. Much like any borrower, if interest on debt is not paid then that debt goes into default. When an individual goes into default, it has a negative effect on their credit and makes it harder for them to borrow money in the future because they are no longer considered a reliable borrower.
What happens when a country with an economy as large as the United States’ goes into default? The most direct answer is that no one can be sure because it has never happened before. But most economists believe it would cause enormous problems for the economy and could even trigger a global financial crisis.6 A default could see the U.S. economy shrink, Social Security benefits and government salaries go unpaid, stock prices drop, the loss of millions of jobs, even an economic recession. It could also result in foreign investors taking money out of the U.S. economy and make investors less likely to invest in the United States in the future.7
Why Hasn’t the Debt Ceiling Been Raised?
Historically, the debt ceiling has been raised 78 times since 1960.8 However, raising the debt ceiling requires a vote by both chambers of Congress. President Biden and the Democrat-controlled Senate are in favor of raising the debt ceiling to avoid a default. The Republican-controlled House is also interested in avoiding a default but so far has only been willing to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for future spending cuts. These cuts would include lowering future budget increases to a maximum of one percent per year, imposing stricter work requirements to receive SNAP (food stamp) benefits, reducing funding for the Internal Revenue Service, reclaiming any unspent COVID-19 relief funds, preventing President Biden’s proposed $10,000 student loan relief, repealing climate change provisions, and increasing oil and gas production.9 Thus far, President Biden has been unwilling to support any spending cuts.10
Discussion Questions
Related Posts
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.
Sources
Last month, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed a first-of-its-kind law banning “adult cabaret entertainment” on public property or in any location where people under 18 could be present.
Senate Bill 3, commonly known as the “drag ban,” in part defines these performances as “male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers.”1 The law calls for first-time offenders to be charged with misdemeanors with subsequent offenses classified as felonies that could result in prison sentences of up to six years. The Republican-controlled Tennessee Senate passed the ban into law on March 2 with the intention for it to go into effect on April 1. The law was halted by a federal judge hours before it was to go into effect using a temporary restraining order, citing constitutional protections of freedom of speech.2
The drag ban has become a national conversation, with opponents of the law criticizing it for targeting the LGBTQ+ community. It follows several other issues considered by Governor Lee over the last couple of months, including prohibiting transgender Tennesseans from changing the gender listed on their driver’s license and prohibiting referrals for children to receive gender-affirming care in the state.3 Those opposed to the law are concerned that it is too vague in its definitions of what constitutes a “drag” impersonation and how to discern a location where a minor may be present. Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Human Rights Campaign have expressed concerns that the law gives too much power to law enforcement to interpret the drag ban as they choose and potentially target transgender and gender-nonconforming entertainers performing in public.4
Members of the drag community argue that drag performances are much like any other form of entertainment. They say that just as some movies or comedy shows are appropriate for children and some are not, there are drag performances made appropriate for children and performances intended for adults. Performers are worried that authorities will not bother to discern the difference or will abuse the law in an effort to ban all drag performances.
State Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, a sponsor of the drag ban bill, argued on Twitter, “The bill gives confidence to parents that they can take their kids to a public or private show and will not be blindsided by a sexualized performance.”5 He continued, “We’re protecting kids and families and parents who want to be able to take their kids to public places. We’re not attacking anyone or targeting anyone.”6 While his sentiments were supported by most Republican legislators, Judge Thomas Parker—who ordered the temporary halt on the Tennessee drag ban and a Republican himself—felt the law was an overreach of government authority.
Regina Lambert Hillman, a professor of law at the University of Memphis, assured that the ban cannot prevent transgender persons from dressing as they choose in public. She explained in an essay, “You still have First Amendment protections, what that means is how a person dresses or what a person says, that does not change. The government cannot suppress speech, including expressive conduct, just because they find it offensive or they don’t like the content.”7
Though this law is the first of its kind passed, 14 other states have introduced similar legislation this year. Experts see this legislation as a coming trend that will likely cause similar conversations about whether it’s a First Amendment violation, LGBTQ+ rights, and how a law like this could be enforced. Meanwhile, the courts will be tasked with determining whether such laws are constitutional.
READ the full bill summary here.
Discussion Questions
Other Resources
Related Posts
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.
Sources
The United States lacks public restrooms. It’s a problem you might only notice when you need to go. Those with chronic conditions such as gastrointestinal disorders, parents with young kids, and older Americans with weaker bladders may be most affected by this shortage, though anyone who just drank a large iced coffee can find themselves in need of—and struggling to find—a bathroom.
A 2021 report by QS Bathrooms Supplies, a United Kingdom-based bathroom retailer, found that the United States had only eight public restrooms per 100,000 people.1 These are typically located in parks, by public transit, or in publicly accessible buildings, though they can be tough to find in times of emergency. Some people have taken it upon themselves to scope out and share locations of public toilets, like Theodora Siegel, who created a TikTok account that posts videos about free public bathrooms in New York City.2 She’s even crowdsourced an interactive Google Map with all the locations.3
The lack of public restrooms means that the responsibility often falls to private businesses. When asked in 2002 about building more public restrooms, then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg replied, “Why? There’s enough Starbucks that’ll let you use the bathroom.”4 Though businesses, hotels, libraries, and museums have stepped up with “open-bathroom” policies to provide this public service, people may still feel obligated—or be outright required to—purchase a product or service to gain access to a toilet.5 And depending on the hours of operation, these bathrooms may not be available at certain times of day.
Public Toilets in the Past
America’s standalone public toilets date back to colonial times, when buildings had no indoor plumbing or dedicated “bathrooms” like the ones we’re used to. According to Debbie Miller, who serves as a museum curator at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, these public toilets were “common and generally communal” across the colonies; there was even an “octagonal outdoor toilet” located behind Independence Hall.6
At the turn of the 20th century, leaders of the temperance movement successfully advocated for the creation of public restrooms outside saloons in the hope that they would lead men to consume less alcohol in bars that had bathrooms.7 Throughout the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal public works programs built over two million “sanitary privies” in parks and “comfort stations” in cities across the country.8 By the 1970s, there were over 50,000 coin-operated pay toilets in America’s urban centers.9
The rise of the automobile and decline of downtown led to the closure of many public restrooms in train stations, bus terminals, and commercial districts.10 The New York City subway had 1,676 public restrooms available in the 1940s; by 2022, that number was down to a mere 78.11 Costly upkeep and strained budgets led to the removal of many public restrooms in subsequent decades, as toilets fell victim to vandalism and neglect.12 They were seen as dark and dirty, unsanitary and unsafe.
Private and Public Solutions
Public restrooms can cost anywhere from $80,000 to $500,000 to construct, and they require daily maintenance to keep them clean and functioning.13 Chad Kaufman, president of the Public Restroom Company which manufactures restrooms, notes that while cities “might have grant funds or public funds to build things, they typically don’t have operational funds to maintain these things.”14 The often glacial pace of government action means that it could take years to select a location, approve a plan, and design and construct the facilities.
The Council of the District of Columbia in 2017 passed the Public Restroom Facilities Installation and Promotion Act, which required a number of agencies to select sites and install public restrooms.15 It also required the mayor to “establish a financial incentive program to encourage private businesses to make their restrooms available to the public for free.”16 This sort of private-public partnership has been implemented in other countries like Germany and England, where local governments pay businesses a small stipend to promote their free toilets.17
In 2008, the city of Portland, Oregon, collaborated with a private manufacturer to design and install 24-hour, single-occupancy bathrooms called the “Portland Loo.”18 They have since been installed in dozens of other cities across the United States and Canada. China’s government led a directive, dubbed the “Toilet Revolution,” which constructed nearly 70,000 publicly accessible toilets in just two years.19 And in Tokyo, restrooms are designed to be vibrant works of art with bright colors, sleek designs, and “smart glass” that provides transparency and turns opaque when occupied.20
Prioritizing Public Restrooms
From a public health perspective, sanitation is crucial to well-being. An individual’s health contributes to the health of the community and the greater common good. When businesses were shuttered during the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw just how vital their bathrooms were to the public. When people don’t have access to a toilet—or a sink to wash their hands—germs and illnesses spread. Bathrooms also keep the surrounding areas of a community clean. They guarantee dignity to people who must meet their basic bodily needs. It can be humiliating to need the bathroom and not be able to go. People might risk arrest for public urination or end up soiling themselves because they couldn’t find one in time.
America’s restrooms should be easy to find, easy to use, safe, and comfortable. As communities improve their public spaces and upgrade their infrastructure, they should consider solutions that make sure their restrooms are accessible to all—regardless of disability, gender, gender identity, age, or socioeconomic status.
Discussion Questions
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.
Sources
On March 23, 2023, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing as part of an ongoing review of TikTok and its connections to the Chinese government. TikTok CEO Shou Chew was the focus of the hearing and took questions from members of Congress on a wide range of topics, including the ways TikTok gathers and secures user data and the access the ruling party of China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), has to that data.1
Currently, there is bipartisan support for enacting a ban on TikTok in the United States. The federal government and dozens of state governments have already enacted various policies banning the social media app in official spaces, on official computers, and/or in employees’ personal capacity.2 However, the ban currently gathering support in Congress would make the app unusable by private citizens regardless of their government status, employment, or age. Such an outright ban on social media extended to individual citizens would be unprecedented in the United States and has generated significant controversy.3
READ MORE: For an in-depth look at whether or not Congress should ban TikTok, subscribers can access a new Close Up Current Issue on the topic!
Should TikTok be Banned?
Bipartisan support is not often found in today’s Congress, particularly on far-reaching legislation. Despite Chew’s insistence during his testimony that TikTok has never provided user data to the CCP and would not do so if asked, Democrats and Republicans in Congress remain highly concerned over the security threat they believe TikTok represents.4
At the heart of their concern is the close relationship that major Chinese corporations, including TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, have to maintain with the CCP in order to thrive in China. They argue that despite the assurances of CEOs like Chew, the Chinese government ultimately has the power to access any information Chinese companies retain and can easily compel them to release that data.5
Lawmakers and law enforcement agencies have also cited TikTok as a potential source of pro-China and/or anti-U.S. manipulation, disinformation, and propaganda.6 In an effort to address some of these concerns and prevent a ban, TikTok has proposed Project Texas—a $1 billion plan to ensure that all U.S. data is stored outside of China.7 For many lawmakers, this proposal does not do enough to guarantee that data is protected and that the CCP cannot utilize that data to undermine U.S. interests and national security.
During the hearing, Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) addressed spectators directly by saying, “I want to say this to all the teenagers out there, and TikTok influencers who think we’re just old and out of touch. … You may not care that your data is being accessed now, but you will be one day.”8
Why Keep TikTok?
Currently, more than 150 million Americans are on TikTok, making it one of the most popular social media apps in the country, particularly among teenagers and young adults. The average TikTok user in the United States spends over 90 minutes on the app per day, opening the app no less than eight times during the day.9 In response to the proposed ban, some users have joined together to voice their opposition and the hearing itself became a focus of users’ objections. Many users argued that the hearing only underscored how out of touch lawmakers are with the realities of technology and social media.
Recently, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) took to TikTok for the first time to announce her opposition to the ban. “They say because of this egregious amount of data harvesting, we should ban this app,” she said. “However, that doesn’t really address the core of the issue.”10 The core of the issue she alluded to is one cited by many of those opposed to the ban. Beyond the fact that TikTok is simply a popular app that users enjoy, some argue that the data-harvesting practices that lawmakers are concerned about are standard to nearly all social media and internet apps. Critics have agreed that data-harvesting and a lack of data privacy are major issues in the United States, but many say a ban on TikTok would do virtually nothing to substantively address those issues.11
For many, a potential TikTok ban also raises broad questions about First Amendment rights—particularly free speech and free expression. Opponents of a TikTok ban question whether the government has any business policing the private activities of private citizens regardless of motive. Some feel that those who have concerns about TikTok’s data privacy practices have the option of not using the app and that the choice of whether to do so should be left to the individual. They argue that while the government may reserve the right to make its own data policies for its employees, it should not be allowed to do the same for private citizens. 12
Discussion Questions
Related Posts
Fallout and Consequences Part 2: Free Speech and Censorship
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.
Sources
On March 6, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law the Youth Hiring Act, a law that, among other things, allows children between the ages of nine and 16 to be hired without the need for an employment certificate to be filed with the state. Under previous state law, an employment certificate was required to be filed with the state providing proof of age, the work schedule and description, and the consent of the child’s parent or guardian.1 In the past few months, lawmakers in Iowa and Ohio have also proposed legislation that would reduce requirements for youth seeking work.2 READ: “The Good and the Bad of Iowa’s Bill That Would Bring Big Changes to Child Labor Laws,” from the Des Moines Register READ: “Bill to Extend Working Hours for Ohio Teens Reintroduced by Lawmakers,” from News 5 Cleveland Proponents of bills like the Youth Hiring Act believe that removing restrictions on child labor would encourage more young people to work and decrease the difficulty businesses have had hiring recently due to record-low unemployment rates. Some lawmakers, such as Iowa State Senator Lynn Evans, have cited the benefits of young people learning the value of work.3 In Arkansas, Governor Sanders provided rationale for removing the certificate requirements. Her spokesperson, Alexa Henning, shared that requiring parents to get permission for their child to work is an additional burden when businesses are required to follow child labor laws in the U.S. regardless of the certificate.4 Business interest groups, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, have supported the Ohio bill.5 Opponents of these bills have cited statistics indicating that the wellness of young workers could be in jeopardy if they are scheduled for longer hours.6 Children may take on more work than they can handle in order to provide financial support for their families. Randy Zook, CEO of the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, voiced his opposition to the Arkansas bill. “The primary thing kids that age need to be focused on is graduating from high school,” he said. “We are afraid this will encourage kids who are under 16 to pursue more work time than school time.”7 These bills have worked their way through state legislatures at the same time that several eye-opening investigations into child labor practices have exposed egregious violations. In July 2022, Reuters published an investigation that documented children as young as 12 working at four Hyundai and Kia subsidiaries.8 On February 25, New York Times reporter Hannah Dreier released the findings of her investigation into the labor conditions of migrant children, interviewing more than 100 children in 20 states.9 Children interviewed included a 15-year-old Guatemalan girl who packages Cheerios, a ninth-grader working 14-hour shifts at a sawmill in South Dakota, and middle schoolers working in bakeries. These working conditions violate federal laws that limit the jobs children can work and the hours and times they can be scheduled.10 The New York Times and Reuters investigations point to a willingness of some businesses in manufacturing, construction, hospitality, and food processing, among others, to turn a blind eye to clear violations of the law and exploit those in vulnerable situations as evidence for increased restriction and oversight of child labor. Child labor violations had been declining for years. Then, after 2015, they started creeping back up. 
On February 27, two days after the New York Times report, President Joe Biden’s administration unveiled several policies that will be implemented to address the nearly 70 percent rise in child labor violations that has taken place from 2018-2022.11 The plan includes the creation of a new task force, targeting industries that have a history of violations, and advocating for heavier penalties and more funding for oversight.12 Congressional Democrats largely support the White House proposal. Republicans, meanwhile, say the Department of Health and Human Services is to blame for the child labor crisis because the Biden administration has loosened regulations regarding the support of migrant children.13 One third of migrant children who have been recorded by HHS now cannot be reached by government officials.14 Meanwhile, some states, such as Nebraska, have renewed their support for child labor protections. On January 5, Nebraska State Senator Carol Blood proposed a resolution that would make Nebraska the 29th state to ratify the Child Labor Amendment of 1924, an amendment to the Constitution that, if passed, would specifically allow Congress to regulate the labor of minors.15 Discussion Questions
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below. Sources
On February 18, the Carter Center released a statement saying that former President Jimmy Carter had opted to spend “his remaining time at home” following a number of hospital stays and declining health.1 News of the 98-year-old former president’s condition has brought an outpouring of support and renewed attention to his life and legacy as the 39th president of the United States. President Carter’s “Crisis of Confidence” speech is perhaps his most famous, and its words are still relevant for our country today.2
President Carter delivered this speech, often referred to as his “Malaise Speech,” on July 15, 1979, while the country was in the midst of an energy crisis.3 After spending several days listening to the concerns of everyday Americans, he concluded that America as a whole suffered from what he called a “crisis of confidence.” This, he said, was a “fundamental threat to American democracy.”4
The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.5
President Carter went on to explain that people had lost faith in their government, in each other, and in their own abilities as citizens to shape their democracy. He recognized the disconnect between the federal government and everyday communities. People felt like their government was not working for them. They grew tired of inaction, inefficiency, partisanship, and the unwillingness of elected officials to compromise for the sake of the common good. Americans, in his eyes, were skeptical of the future and doubted the progress we had made as a nation.
For the first time in the history of our country, a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past five years. Two-thirds of our people do not even vote. The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world.6
These problems persist in our current political climate. According to a recent NBC News poll from the summer of 2022, three quarters of voters said that the country is “headed in the wrong direction,” with 58 percent also adding that “America’s best years are behind it.”7 And although the 2020 election saw record voter turnout, one third of eligible voters still did not vote.8 Trust in government has been eroding for decades. A May 2022 Pew Research poll found that only 20 percent of Americans believed they could trust the government to do what is right “always or most of the time.”9 This is down from 30 percent who said the same at the time of President Carter’s speech.10
Though the main focus of President Carter’s speech was the energy crisis, he was speaking to a country that had experienced political shock and cynicism. It had seen the assassinations of political and civil rights leaders. It had grown disillusioned with the Vietnam War. There was a widespread feeling of distrust in government institutions and elected officials post-Watergate, and people were hurting financially due to stagflation (high inflation, high unemployment, and slow economic growth).
Americans today face their own similar and unique challenges: the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, high inflation, misinformation, and issues of civil rights and racial justice, among others. Lies about the legitimacy of elections led to an attack on the Capitol and continue to saturate our national discourse. Hyperpartisanship has distorted the way we see each other, and a breakdown in basic levels of decency among individuals and political leaders has furthered the divide between “us” and “them.”
President Carter urged Americans to trust in each other and once again find common purpose in order to overcome this ongoing crisis. To reunite the country, it was imperative to restore our “American values.”11 This would take time and effort on behalf of all of us. “Little by little we can and we must rebuild our confidence. We can spend until we empty our treasuries, and we may summon all the wonders of science,” he concluded. “But we can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources—America’s people, America’s values, and America’s confidence.”12
Discussion Questions
Other Resources
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.
Sources
Following the 2020 murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, a call by activists to “defund the police” achieved national attention. Supporters of defunding the police have argued that—at least some of—the billions of dollars spent on policing each year could be better used by investing in educational, recreational, and mental health programs, among others, in an effort to reduce crime and increase community well-being more generally. With the release of footage showing multiple officers pepper-spraying, kicking, and punching Tyre Nichols—leading to his death three days later—questions of whether and how to reduce police budgets have been brought back into the national conversation.1
In order to understand this issue, it is important to define what defunding the police means and what it doesn’t mean. Responding to the deaths of five Dallas police officers in a 2016 mass shooting, Dallas Police Chief David Brown said, “We’re asking cops to do too much in this country. … Every societal failure, we put it off on the cops to solve. Not enough mental health funding, let the cops handle it. …Here in Dallas we got a loose dog problem; let’s have the cops chase loose dogs. Schools fail, let’s give it to the cops. … That’s too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems.”2
This is what many activists mean when they call for the police to be defunded. Reduce the number of responsibilities we ask of the police, decrease police budgets to match the reduced size of the police force, and use the diverted funds to invest in programs and staff who are trained to address mental health crises, struggling schools, and other social issues.
“Defund the police” does not mean “abolish the police.” It means police would have a more limited, primarily peacekeeping role. But they would not be asked to take on other roles, like those mentioned by Chief Brown.
Defunding the police is not a brand-new movement. Activists have been calling to defund the police for nearly a decade—since at least 2014, following the death of Michael Brown at the hands of police in Ferguson, Missouri—but the slogan caught on much more broadly in 2020, even being echoed by some progressive members of Congress.3 While many Democratic Party leaders worried that the slogan was “divisive,” members of the so-called “Squad,” including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), expressed support for defunding the police. They were clear that they did not want only to cut police funding, but to redirect those taxpayer dollars into other social services.4
The movement to defund the police has also garnered opposition. Opponents of the idea believe it is unwise to call for reducing the size and budgets of police forces when crime has risen in some parts of the country in recent years. Opponents argue that such a policy could actually encourage crime by reducing the capacity of police forces. As Jacqueline Helfgott, a professor of criminal justice at Seattle University, wrote, “If we defund the police, those most affected will be the poor and the marginalized. Wealthy neighborhoods will hire private security as they are already doing, and poorer neighborhoods will have to fend for themselves even more than they already have to. Delays in police response and lack of police capacity will increase fear of crime, render victims of crime helpless, and wreak havoc on communities, especially communities of color, even more so than is already the case.”5
Other political activists and commentators want to go beyond merely reducing the budgets and responsibilities of law enforcement and “abolish the police.” In an interview following Nichols’ death, police abolitionist Andrea Ritchie called for police to be phased out completely, beginning with limiting their authority to conduct certain actions, starting with traffic stops. “[I]t would require a complete restructuring of the society that we live in,” she said. “It would require us to shift our priorities from responding to every form of need, conflict, and harm with agents of violence. … And so, it does require a radical reimagination of what we understand safety to be.”6 Ritchie and other police abolitionists make the case that “safety is not produced primarily through force,” and therefore, “police don’t make us safer.”7
WATCH: “Howard Prof. Justin Hansford & Abolitionist Andrea Ritchie on Tyre Nichols & Calls for No More Police,” from Democracy Now!
Police abolitionist scholars have argued that the over-policing of Americans—disproportionately low-income people of color—has led to “the systematic mass incarceration of people of color in the United States,” most directly through the War on Drugs.8 Alex Vitale explains that, as a response to the War on Drugs, the Los Angeles Police Department “developed specialized antigang units first known as TRASH (Total Resources Against Street Hoodlums) and later sanitized [renamed] CRASH (Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums)” in the 1970s.9 These specialized police teams became the model for later elite forces, such as the Memphis Police Department’s SCORPION Unit (Street Crimes Operation to Restore Peace in Our Neighborhoods), five members of which have now been charged with the murder of Nichols.10
READ: “To Produce Safety, We Must Understand What Drives Violence,” from Common Justice
With another high-profile police killing of an unarmed Black man, Americans are once again reconsidering what safety looks like and how police fit into that picture.
Discussion Questions
Possible Extension Activities
Further Reading
Related Posts
Protests, Police Reform, and Civil Unrest
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.
Sources
671 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
703-706-3300 or 800-CLOSE UP
CST-1002082-40:
Registration as a seller of travel does not constitute approval by the State of California.
:quality(70):focal(-5x-5:5x5)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/SIJQXXACO5DMDCIEFARWLIWJ2U.jpg){kind=link}